Federal Prosecutor for First Nation By-law Offences

Summary#

This bill amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act so that the federal Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) becomes the default prosecutor for summary conviction offences (less serious offences with lower penalties) under First Nation laws. A First Nation can opt out by appointing or retaining its own prosecutor or by making an agreement with a province or territory for prosecutions. The bill also defines “First Nation” and “First Nation law” for this purpose and adjusts the Act’s definition of “prosecution” to account for the new duty (Clause 1; Clause 2, new s.3.1).

• Makes the DPP responsible for initiating and conducting prosecutions, appeals, and related proceedings for summary conviction offences under First Nation laws, on behalf of the First Nation (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)).
• Lets First Nations choose a different path by appointing their own prosecutor or entering a provincial/territorial agreement; in those cases, the DPP does not prosecute (Clause 2, new s.3.1(2)).
• Defines “First Nation” and “First Nation law” to include Indian Act bylaws, laws under the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act, and laws under self-government agreements (Clause 1).
• Does not change what is an offence, penalties, or court procedures; it changes who prosecutes these cases.

What it means for you#

• Households and businesses in First Nation communities:

  • If you are charged with a summary conviction offence under a First Nation law, your case would be prosecuted by a federal DPP lawyer unless your First Nation has appointed its own prosecutor or has an agreement with a province or territory (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)-(2)).
  • Appeals related to those prosecutions would also be handled by the DPP in the default scenario (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)).
  • The bill does not change offences, penalties, or your procedural rights; it changes which public office prosecutes the case.

• First Nations governments and councils:

  • By default, you would have the DPP prosecute summary conviction offences under your laws “on behalf of” your First Nation (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)).
  • You keep choice and control: you can appoint or retain your own prosecutor, or you can enter an agreement with a province or territory for prosecution; if you do, the DPP will not prosecute (Clause 2, new s.3.1(2)).
  • The definitions cover bylaws under the Indian Act, laws under the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act, and laws under self-government agreements (Clause 1).

• Provincial and territorial governments:

  • Existing or future agreements with First Nations to prosecute their summary conviction offences would continue or be available; in those cases, the DPP does not prosecute (Clause 2, new s.3.1(2)).
  • Where no agreement exists and no prosecutor is appointed by the First Nation, the DPP becomes the default prosecutor (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)-(2)).

• Courts and legal practitioners:

  • Expect a change in who appears as prosecutor in affected cases; the DPP would appear by default unless an opt-out applies (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)-(2)).
  • The bill revises the Act’s definition of “prosecution” to align with the new section (Clause 1(2)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Fiscal note: No publicly available information.
• Appropriations in the bill: None specified.
• Revenue changes (fees, fines, or transfers): Data unavailable.
• Administrative impact: The bill assigns the DPP a new duty to prosecute and handle appeals for summary conviction offences under First Nation laws when no opt-out applies; the volume of cases and related costs are not provided (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)-(2)).

Proponents' View#

• Provides a reliable default prosecutor so First Nation laws can be enforced without each Nation having to staff prosecutions, improving access to prosecution services (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)).
• Respects First Nations’ choice and self-government by allowing them to appoint their own prosecutor or use provincial/territorial agreements, keeping local control where desired (Clause 2, new s.3.1(2)).
• Clarifies scope by defining “First Nation” and “First Nation law,” reducing ambiguity about coverage across Indian Act bylaws, land management laws, and self-government laws (Clause 1).
• Streamlines appeals and related proceedings by assigning them to the same prosecuting authority in default cases, which could improve consistency (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)). Assumes consistent practice across regions.
• May lower costs for some First Nations that would otherwise pay for their own prosecutors, since the DPP prosecutes by default (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)). Actual savings depend on case numbers; Data unavailable.

Opponents' View#

• Adds duties to the DPP without an explicit funding provision, which could strain resources and risk delays in prosecutions if caseload rises; the bill provides no cost estimate or staffing plan. This assumes increased demand; Data unavailable.
• Could reduce incentives for local or regional prosecution capacity-building, since the federal DPP becomes the default unless a First Nation opts out (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)-(2)).
• Implementation risk: First Nation laws vary by community; critics warn the DPP will need training to apply many distinct legal frameworks. The bill sets no timelines, standards, or reporting for readiness or performance. No publicly available implementation plan.
• Jurisdictional coordination challenges may arise in regions with existing provincial roles; while opt-out is allowed, managing transitions could be complex (Clause 2, new s.3.1(2)). Details on intergovernmental agreements are not provided.
• Scope limits could cause confusion: only “summary conviction offences” are covered; cases outside that category are not addressed. The bill does not define procedures for borderline or mixed cases (Clause 2, new s.3.1(1)).